Skip to comments.Why Donald Trump is Beating Ted Cruz
Posted on 03/05/2016 6:44:16 AM PST by CapitalistCrusader
I was thinking about the republican primary and asking myself, "if conservatism is the answer and Ted Cruz is an exemplar of conservatism, why is he not doing much better at the ballot box so far?" Or, why is Donald Trump doing so much better? In my opinion, Trump is doing better because he is proposing solutions to our country's problems that are derived from common sense thinking.
For example, there are thousands of illegal aliens crossing the border with Mexico on a monthly basis. Trump's solution? Build a wall. This is not a new idea so Trump adds that he'll get Mexico to pay for it. Whether he can actually get Mexico to pay for it is not really relevant to his campaign. Politicians routinely make bold predictions of what they will do once elected and then never deliver. The point is that he mixes the common sense solutions with a degree of bravado that adds an air of the traditional rugged American. This theme of common sense solutions mixed with a little New York moxy has been pattern in his campaign thus far. This is what he has branded "Common Sense Conservatism."
Putting all the name calling aside, Trump and Cruz want to accomplish many of the same goals as POTUS. Secure the border, replace ObamaCare. reduce the size of the federal government, etc. So why is Trump resonating with more voters than Cruz? Because Ted Cruz is an elitist conservative. What is an elitist? An elitist is a person who believes that a society or system should be lead by an elite. Only a "true" conservative is able to select a proper justice for the supreme court. Only a "true" conservative can come up with the right plan to rein in the federal bureaucracy. Only a "true" conservative can fix the health care system. The list goes on and on. His demeanor suggests that only he, a "true" conservative, can properly lead, or is fit to lead our country out of the problems we currently face.
This is why a Ted Cruz campaign rally is reminiscent of a revival meeting. Ted Cruz is an elitist conservative. He is as much an elitist as Mitt Romney, as Jeb Bush, as Mitch McConnell, as Harry Reid, as Nancy Pelosi. He is simply a member of different elitist cabal.
But here's a new flash for Ted Cruz and Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. Conservatism comes in many flavors, not just the true, doctrinaire, orthodox variety. There are many conservatives out here who are secualr, or gay, or lesbian, or even atheist. And we don't like to be preached to and proselytized.
I am a Trump supporter but I will vote for whomever wins the nomination legitimately. But all you elitists out there, of both the Republican and Conservative variety, should be aware that if you destroy Trump by invective you will be alienating a large swath of voters. If that happens I would expect turnout in the general to reach historic lows and Clinton to be the next POTUS. Is destroying Trump worth it?
I’m just freaking obsessed. It’s a fault.
NEWSFLASH; Trump already is pissing off the elites. That ship has sailed.
Trump has said often over the years that he relates to the blue collar, man on the street citizens far more than those elites.
The answer is actually much simpler.
And I say this as a Cruz supporter
Cruz sounds like he’s getting ready to fight a boxing match with Marquess of Queensberry Rules.
Trump sounds like he’s getting ready to fight a no-holds barred gutter brawl where the last man standing is the winner.
And the Republican electorate wants a brawl and not a boxing match.
If Cruz wants to win he needs to sound more like a fighter and less like a lawyer.
No it ain't and I insist on having the last word. (;>))
My only disagreement would that it is possible to have morality without religion. But, I think that is a subject for a different thread.
Are you sure about that? Cruz has deep neocon roots.
Plus, the idea that Americans or Republicans or even conservative voters are just waiting around for an ideally conservative candidate to come around doesn't hold much water. Reagan Democrats had a lot of reasons for voting for Reagan, but if they'd wanted a hardcore National Review conservative -- or someone even further right -- most of them wouldn't have stayed Democrats. That holds true of today's potential crossover voters as well (and there are a lot fewer conservative Democrats out there than there were thirty years ago).
A large share of self-professed conservatives doesn't vote for the candidates who proclaim themselves to be the most conservative. A lot of those candidates weren't really electable or didn't have the experience to be president. And a lot of Republican voters feel the same way about Ted. He doesn't have that much administrative experience, and he's already alienated most of the people he will have to lead.
The approaches that appeal to very convinced conservatives don't win over as many Americans or Republicans as one might think. And things that appeal to one particular sort of conservatives won't even appeal to other conservatives. For example, a politician who tries to make himself or herself into everything some Evangelical voters want, will lose many secular voters -- and also some Evangelical voters as well.
You may remember the title of a book about Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, The Warrior and the Priest. I don't think anybody actually read the book, but the idea Roosevelt was the warrior and Wilson the priest. The perception now is that Cruz is the bookish, sickly priest and they are looking for a warrior. It's may be hard to believe that Donald Trump fits the bill, but whatever else Trump is, he's no priest.
The reason is the man has no core vales or principles, he's been a Democrat, held multiple liberal views, praised Hillary & donated 4 times to Hillary's Presidential campaign.
No spin, no analysis, just the man in his own words. ...just 2:27 to see what a political Chameleon the man is.
Don't just blow off this short video, if you really don't understand the push-back, you must educate yourself.
If, as I predict, you've already drank the Kool-Aid, I know exactly what your retort will be upon watching the video.
It Doesn't Matter
I Don't Care
(PS - Drinking the Kook-Aid is in reference to the late Jim Jones followers.)
I’m not convinced that Trump is going to beat Cruz just yet. Cruz is not that far behind Trump in the delegate count. Lot of states to go.
I did not mean you lied about Trump but his opponents. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
See post #23
You didn't do anything wrong per se.
Welcome to FR
Old-timers just chuckle at Noobs who sign up and immediately post a vanity,their thoughts or take on an issue as a new thread as apposed to commenting on existing threads.
...thinking no one has said or had the sames thoughts, thinking they are the Enlightened1.
PS. That handle has already been taken. hehe
If you haven’t drank the Cruz-aid watch this one:
PS - I got the Kool-Aid reference.
I’ve been reading FR for a long long time. Is everybody’s first post vanity? Was yours?
If the handle was already taken why was I able to use it?
Hopefully not...that's like a reverse IQ test. If you could think that, you are too stupid for words.
You are paying attention to the views that support your prejudice. There are facts of which you are unaware. Trump has “helped” tens of thousands of people with jobs and wealth. His support for conservatives and conservative positions is well known. Look into it. The rest of your screed is based on your gut. It is as I said, “Opposition to Trump seems to be based completely on emotional reactions to hysterical perceptions.”
As I have posted frequently over the past decade, I believe it is axiomatic that conservatives are not activists, but conservatism needs fighters to defend its cause.
I am reposting a post of mine from 2/26/2009 from the oddly named thread Roger Ailes and Murdock Supressing Obama Eligibility Story (Vanity), along with follow-up posts, which essentially laid out my "manifesto," if you will. I still think it answers the topline question today. Feel free to browse the whole thread for context.
The game is not providing evidence, the game is providing innuendo. Put Obama on the defensive. We don't have to prove anything to do that, we just have to put the question out there.
That's the Democrat playbook. That's the MSM playbook. That should be our playbook, too.
Proof comes later. Accusations and innuendos come now. Don't hold up on spreading the perceptions because you're not sure you can seal the deal with proof.
Taint Obama's legitimacy with the appearance of irregularity. Smoke him out. Let him either show the proof or continue to live under the cloud of suspicion, but either way, don't hold back.
You know they wouldn't if the roles were reversed.
I kind of like to think we're better than they are.
You know, I was going to put that in my post using the technique of putting those words in your mouth and then retorting, but I figured that would not be respectful to you. I would wait for you to naturally respond that way and then retort. I thank you for supplying the comment on your own.
As Las Vegas Ron replied, "being better than they are" is what "they" count on. Conservatives, by nature, are not aggressive activists like the leftists are, which is why the leftists have no trouble playing dirty. They know that conservatives will shy away from a fight, to the extreme of staying home from an election.
That's why the innuendos that they hurled around before the election were those of being racist if we challenged Obama's experience, being racist if we challenged Obama's schooling, being racist if we challenged Obama's religion, being racist if we challenged Obama's friends, being racist if we referenced Obama's full name, being racist if we challenged Obama's constitutional qualification, and even being racist if we didn't vote for Obama. The result is that it drove conservatives to either vote for Obama or stay home.
So, "being better than they are" is bringing a knife to a gunfight, or rather, not bringing a weapon at all and hoping to reason with them.
THERE YOU GO..., that pretty much explains what the Obama Derangement Syndrom people (here on Free Republic) are doing. You said it providing innuendo and thats all.
As for defining "Obama Derangement Syndrome," it is nothing of the sort. I am not endorsing this behavior out of blind hatred for Obama. I've been endorsing this behavior to be used against ALL Democrats ALL the time. Call it "Democrat Derangement Syndrome" if you must, but I am not an ODS victim.
That being said, I am also not one who is blindly putting my faith in the various court proceedings going on. However, I am also not shy about joining in on the various court threads to debate the possibilities. My focus has been on the PR aspects of the "whisper campaign" of all of this, that is, using the Democrats' techniques against them.
ODS would assume that the Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas alliance would naturally rise up to force a fair hearing of the concerns, which has not happened. I was an early voice suggesting that the Supreme Court would never touch this out of fear of civil unrest, regardless of the merits. I can point to postings over the summer on the various BC threads where I've taken this position.
Therefore, it is the other, softer, backdoor, "whisper" methods that work so well for Democrats, that must be used here. That's what I advocate, and have been advocating for all issues Democrat ever since signing up here.
The mantra is "Perception is more important than reality. The perception of guilt is just as damaging as being guilty." That's why Democrats were so focused on "guilt by association" during the Jack Abramoff scandal, whether the Republican was involved with him or just took a small campaign donation. It's also why the MSM worked so hard to surpress the equivalent Rezko scandal of Obama, or the Hsu scandal for Hillary Clinton. They know the value of shaping perceptions, even if they aren't true to the degree of proof required in a court.
Look at how the Democrats and MSM are trying to create the perception that Bobby Jindal has ruined his chance to be President based on Tuesday night's 10 minute speech. Barney Frank is telling everybody that Republicans caused the banking meltdown, and Republicans didn't applaud Obama out of fear of Hannity and Limbaugh. Harry Reid says we're losing in Iraq and the economy is getting better. I guess we're better than they are to the point of not trying to do anything that might taint Obama's authority, because we can't prove it in court, or even get a court to hear it.
But you're focused on the wrong court -- the court here is the court of public opinion. And innuendo, and whispers, and unproven charges, and hyperbole are the tools before that court.
I hope you're paying attention to the latest round of Democrat hyperbole in attacking Rush Limbaugh as the "head of the Republican Party," and how they are dragging Michael Steele into the fray, and how all sorts of questionable "conservative" pundits are taking sides on this. Or how they're now targeting Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer.
I hope you're paying attention because this is exactly the kind of messaging tactic that our side needs to be more aggressive at. I don't see the Democrats waiting to have proof that will stand up in court before hurling their accusations into the ether. I don't understand why we advocate having all our I's dotted and T's crossed before challenging Democrats.
Setting aside the issue of publicizing Obama's constitutional qualification, our side should also be loudly aiming accusations at Chris Dodd and Barney Frank for the financial mess; we should be going after MSNBC and ABC news correspondents for their laziness in covering these stories; we should be pointing out the failures of major newspapers because they were too biased in reporting the news.
It doesn't matter if these targets complain about being attacked, or that the attacks are just diversions (which they are), or that the attacks are unfounded (which they are not). The point is that while they are reacting, they are also doing several other things: 1) they are dragging themselves into the gutter with the people they hoped to lead into the gutter, 2) they are further exposing the stories that we want exposed by keeping the story alive, 3) they are not reporting on other things while they report on this, 4) they look just as mean-spirited as they are trying to portray others. If they fail to respond for fear of the above, then the accusations stand unchallenged.
That's how it is done in today's court of public opinion.
Conservatives need a fighter. For too long, we trusted the politicians to let them do it their way, the proven way, the accepted way, the traditional way. We have since learned that it is now the crony way, the corrupted way, the self-interested, self-serving, and self-preserving way.
So like the poor dirt-farmers in the movie The Magnificent Seven, conservatives need a hired gun to oust the gang that is abusing them and stealing the fruits of their labors from them.
Conservatives are hiring a fighter from outside to finally defend them.
My comments were strictly directly related at Cruz and his self serving pleas.
Trump’s business success speaks nothing to his political views. If it was the solid indicator you claim, you would be voting for one William Gates. He has “helped” more people based on your definition of “help”.
Trump’s support of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shumer and Hillary Clinton is also well known. Look into that. You must ignore everything before he began positioning for this run in 2013 to conclude Trump is even a moderate, much less conservative.
Observing his behavior and not liking it is not emotion. Chanting “Make America Great” and “Build a Wall” is emotion. Ignoring his entire life record in the public is the blinders you wear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.